Marshall v The King

Case [2024] NZSC 120

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA
 SC 80/2024
 [2024] NZSC 120
BETWEEN

THOMAS GARY MARSHALL
Applicant

AND

THE KING
Respondent
Court:

Glazebrook, Kós and Miller JJ

Counsel:

A J Bailey for Applicant
A J Ewing for Respondent

Judgment:

20 September 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

  1. Mr Marshall is a co-offender of Mr Ford, whose application for leave to appeal we dismissed earlier this week.[1]  Mr Marshall’s application for leave to appeal, filed subsequently to Mr Ford’s, relies on exactly the same grounds and submissions.[2]  For the reasons given in the case of Mr Ford’s application, Mr Marshall’s application too is dismissed. 

    [1]Ford v R [2024] NZSC 118 (Glazebrook, Kós and Miller JJ).

    [2]Seeking to appeal Ford v R [2024] NZCA 239 (Mallon, Lang and Moore JJ).

Solicitors:
Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent


Details
AGLC
Marshall v The King [2024] NZSC 120
Case
[2024] NZSC 120
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard the appeal of Thomas Gary Marshall against The King. Marshall sought leave to appeal a decision made by the Court of Appeal that upheld his conviction and sentence. This application followed a similar unsuccessful appeal by his co-offender, Mr Ford. Both Marshall and Ford's appeals were grounded on the same legal issues, focusing on the application of the law in the original trial and subsequent appellate proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the grounds for appeal presented by Marshall were sufficiently distinct or meritorious to warrant a review by the Supreme Court. The court considered whether the appeal had any prospect of success and if it raised a point of law of general public importance. Given the earlier dismissal of Mr Ford’s appeal, which was based on identical grounds, the court had a precedent to consider in its deliberations.

The Supreme Court found that Marshall's appeal did not present any new or distinct arguments that warranted a departure from the earlier decision dismissing Mr Ford’s appeal. The reasoning in the Ford case adequately addressed the issues raised, and no new legal principles or significant distinctions were identified in Marshall's application. Consequently, the court dismissed Marshall's application for leave to appeal, adhering to the precedent set by the earlier decision.

The final order of the court was to dismiss Marshall's application for leave to appeal, thereby upholding the Court of Appeal's decision. This ruling concluded that the appeal did not meet the necessary criteria for Supreme Court review.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.